KANU PAUL vs THE UNION OF INDIA and 2 ORS

Bhuyan, J.

1.Heard Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for the

respondents.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the Foreigners

Tribunal, Hailakandi in F.T. Case No.158/2012 (State Vs. Kanul Paul) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India

(Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 12.06.2015, which was registered as Misc. Case

No.17/2015. By the order dated 16.09.2015, Foreigners Tribunal, Hailakandi (Tribunal) dismissed the review petition by holding that there was no

sufficient ground to allow the review petition.

This Court by order dated 23.02.2016 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner

should be allowed to remain on bail subject to his appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hailakandi and furnishing of adequate

security.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered, Also perused the record, including the record requisitioned from the

Tribunal.

Before examining the record, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned order dated 12.06.2015, relevant portion of which is extracted

hereunder: “… O.P. in his evidence on affidavit stated that he is a permanent residence of village Rampur, Police station Katlicherra, District

Hailkandi and his name has been enlisted in the voterlist of 2010 under L.A.7 Katlicherra constituency. He also stated that his name also been enlisted

in the voterlist of 1997 under Katlicherra constituency vide Ext.1 and Ext.2. O.P. also submitted that one election paper for the year 1989 which is

marked as Ext.3. O.P. stated that the name of his father is Late Rasamay Paul who is an Indian citizen and a registration certificate was issued in

favour of his father by the competent authority in the year 1965 which is marked as Ext.4. On perusal of Ext.4 it appears that O.P.’s father

Rasamay Chandra Paul originally a resident of village Bowarkapan, P.S. Jaganathpur (Sunamganj) Sylhet and subsequently he entered into India and

his present address is mentioned as Hailakandi, Hailakandi town on that registration Certificate and the registration certificate was issued on 12 -11-

But in the said certificate there is no mention about any other members of the family of said Rasamay Chandra Paul. O.P.’s present age is

more than 55 years. Had he been entered into India alongwith his father Rasamay Chandra Paul definitely his name would be in Ext.4. O.P. also

failed to show any other document except Ext.1 and Ext.2 the certified copies of the voterlist for the year 2010 and 1997 and another election paper

for the year 1989, Ext.3. There is no other papers to show that O.P. entered into India before 1989. Therefore, in conclusion, I have no other option

but to opine that O.P. Shri Kanul Paul, son of Rasamay Paul is a foreigner who entered into India after the 25th day of March, 1971.â€​

The record discloses that reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Karimganj suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner.

In his written statement, petitioner stated that his father was Late Rasamay Chandral Paul, son of Late Rama Kanta Paul. Petitioner was a

permanent resident of village Rampur under Katlicherra Police Station in the district of Hailakandi. His name was enlisted as a voter in 1997 and

2010. His father was issued with a registration certificate by the competent authority on 12.11.1965. In the affidavit sworn in support of the written

statement on 04.04.2013, petitioner declared his age as 57 years, which would mean that he was born sometime in the year 1956 (2013-57= 1956).

Before we proceed further, we may point out that in the said affidavit, the deponent i.e. the petitioner was identified by an Advocate Sri Ritish

Kanti Das on 04.06.2013 which is also the date of endorsement by the Notary Public Sri K. Choudhury. But the deponent signed the said affidavit two

months prior to that date i.e. on 04.04.2013. It is thus evident that the deponent was not personally present before the Notary Public, when the

affidavit was notarized. This is a serious error in the affidavit for which the written statement itself could be rejected.

In his evidence-in-chief, which the petitioner filed on 17.06.2013 and which was stated to be on oath, there is no affidavit by the petitioner. Even

though this may be a technical error but the fact remains that evidence-in-chief of a party has to be tendered on oath either in person or by way of an

affidavit. Unfortunately in this case though it was stated that the evidence-in-chief was on oath, but there was no administering of oath to the

petitioner. On this count itself, the evidence-in-chief of the petitioner could be discarded.

Learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hailakandi had completely overlooked both the above mistakes which ought to have been detected. Be that

as it may, even in the evidence-in-chief petitioner had narrated the same thing as stated in the written statement.

Petitioner had filed four documents in support of his claim, which were marked as Exihibit-1 to Exhibit.4. But here also we do not find any

endorsement of the learned Member. It is trite that mere filing of a document or marking of a document as exhibit is not enough. The document so

filed has to be proved in accordance with law before the same can be said to have been exhibited. Even if we ignore such procedural requirement, it is

found that Exihibit-4 is a photocopy of a certificate of registration dated 12.11.1965. As per this certificate of registration, Sri Rasamay Chandra Paul

was registered as a citizen of India under the provisions of Section 5 (1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. As noticed above, Tribunal had discarded this

document on the ground that it was a document which did not contain the names of other family members of Sri Rasamay Chandra Paul. We have

already mentioned above that the petitioner was born sometime in the year 1956. If that be so, his name or his mother’s name ought to have been

registered either as refugees or as citizens of this country, but no such document was placed on record.

Section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 deals with citizenship by registration. As per this provision, the Central Government may, on an

application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue of the

Constitution or of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of the categories mentioned therein. As per Clause-(a), he has to be a person of

Indian origin who is ordinarily a resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration. Therefore, Section 5 (1)(a) of the said

Act mandates that for registration of citizenship, a person of Indian origin must ordinarily be a resident of India for seven years, whereafter he can

make an application for citizenship to the Central Government. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner’s father had entered into

India in the year 1958 or prior to that and thereafter he had made an application for registration as a citizen of India pursuant to which Exhibit-4

(certificate) was issued to him. On the other hand, in paragraph-2 of the writ petition, it is stated that Sri Rasamay Chandra Paul had migrated to India

in the year 1964. If he had migrated to India in 1964, he could not have been registered as a citizen of India within one year in 1965 as per Section

5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides that when the citizenship status of a person is suspected by the State, burden would be on such

person to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. The rationale behind Section 9 of the Foreigners Act has been explained by the

Supreme Court in paragraphs-22 and 26 of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665. The relevant paragraphs-22 and 26 are

extracted here-in-below:

“22. This Act confers wide ranging powers to deal with all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or

description of foreigner for prohibiting, regulating or restricting their or his entry into India or their presence or continued presence including his arrest,

detention and confinement. The most important provision is Section 9 which casts the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a

foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall lie upon such person. Therefore, where an order made under the Foreigners

Act is challenged and a question arises whether the person against whom the order has been made is a foreigner or not, the burden of proving that he

is not a foreigner is upon such a person. In Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammed AIR 1961 SC 1526, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi served an order

on Ghaus Mohammad to leave India within three days as he was a Pakistani national. He challenged the order before the High Court which set aside

the order by observing that there must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can proceed to pass an order under Section 3(2)(c)

of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In appeal the Constitution Bench reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that onus of showing that he is not a

foreigner was upon the respondent.â€​.......

“26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country.

In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents

(iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Some times the place of birth of his grand parents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the

Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State.

After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State

authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to

first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when

any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.â€​

Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner had failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners

Act, 1946 to prove that he was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Under such circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken

by the Tribunal.

There is one more aspect to which we would like to aver at this stage. In paragraph-2 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that his father along

with family members had migrated to India in the year 1965 due to religious persecution. This is a bald statement devoid of necessary particulars. That

apart, neither in the written statement nor in the evidence-in-chief filed before the Tribunal, petitioner had stated that his father had migrated to India

from Pakistan or from Bangladesh due to religious persecution. That was not his case. It is only in the writ petition that a single statement has been

made in this regard, which contradicts his stand that Rasamay Chandra Paul was registered as a citizen of India in 1965. As pointed out by the

Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), when it comes to establishing the identify of a person as a citizen of India, he has to disclose material

particulars, such as, name of his father, mother and their places of birth, grand-parents and their places of birth etc. Till this point of time, we do not

know who is the mother of the petitioner? Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

Writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Send back the LCR.

Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (Border) for doing the needful.

Copies of this order be also furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Cordinator,

NRC.